Talk:Kerr-Addison Mine

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kerr-Addison Mine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Praseodymium-141 (talk · contribs) 08:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems a bit short and sparse for a GA. I'll review this anyway.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Seems a bit short and sparse for a GA. I'll review this anyway.

Criteria list

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   None.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All tagged.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Question from CT55555

@User:Praseodymium-141 is the above draft feedback?, I don't currently understand it. CT55555(talk) 17:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a list showing the GA criteria. The circles:

• = criteria passed.
• = criteria failed.
• = criteria on hold (usually for a week).
• or = criteria not checked.

I will add my comments below when I have time (probably tomorrow). ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 19:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that's helpful. Thanks. CT55555(talk) 19:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Let's start with prose issues.

1a:

• Gold ore was initially discovered at the mine's location around 1900, although production was low until 1936, then increasing through to 1960 and stopping in 1963. - sounds a bit awkward. Maybe split into smaller sentences.
• In the 1960s the mine was the largest gold producing gold mine in Canada. - add , after 1960s.
• Ownership of the mine changed several times with surface and mining rights not always staying with the same corporation, until 2021, at which point Gold Candle Limited took ownership of both. - sounds awkward.
• The mine is on basalt volcanic rock. maybe The mine is located on... sounds better.
• Ownership of the mine passed between three companies, the third being Associated Goldfields Limited, who bought both the Kerr-Addison mine, and the adjacent Reddick mine, in 1917. + the at the start.
• In 2010, Armistice Resources Corporation, who already owned the neighboring McGarry Mine, bought the Kerr-Addison Mine, and in 2011 announced plans to drill more. - drill what?

1b:

• The lead is quite short. Try to add more information to it.
• Expand location and geology.
• Expand unionisation.

A few more will come later. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 18:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

All 1a issues addressed. CT55555(talk) 18:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

All 1b issues now addressed. There doesn't seem to be much about the history of unionisation, but old newspapers and academic papers did enable some expansion there.

Thanks for the clear and actionable feedback and for the clear way it is presented, it's very helpful. Ping @Praseodymium-141 CT55555(talk) 18:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I just realised that located is used a few times in location and geology, so I changed the first occurrence to situated. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 19:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I saw you uploaded a new image. I have cropped its background. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 19:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Here are some more comments (mainly on referencing):

The reference section seems fine.

Are these sources reliable:

• geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca?
• northernminer.com?
• ontarioabandonedplaces.com?
• mindat.org?
• opencorporates.com?
• northernotariobusiness.com?
• timminstoday.com?
• farbergroup.com?

I'll check for WP:OR after these have been checked. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 19:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca - is a Canadian government publication, that publishes what mine owners submit. It has been accepted as a reliable source at Uranium mining in the Bancroft area and I think therefore consensus is yes.
• northernminer.com is a news site about mining. It has a 100-year track record, and I consider reliable.
• ontarioabandonedplaces.com relies on user-generated content. Upon reflection, probably unreliable.
• mindat.org also relies on user-generated content. Probably questionable.
• opencorporates.com? OpenCorporates won awards for it's transparency work, and I think yes.
• northernotariobusiness.com - is a trade magazine. I think not good for notability but reliable for verifiability. It has a 30-year track record https://www.northernontariobusiness.com/about-nob/about-us
• timminstoday.com is a news site, in my assessment, reliable
• farbergroup.com is a private company. Normally a bad source. But in the context of the notice here https://farbergroup.com/engagements/gsr-mining-corporationaj-perron-gold-corp/ it would be a crime to incorrectly report this, so I think we can rely on it for the specific info it contains

CT55555(talk) 19:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment from Larataguera

Hi, hope you don't mind me jumping in with a couple of questions! Is there any more information about the facilities? Specifically: what happened to the tailings? Is there a tailings dam? Also, it sounds like there was a mill on site to refine low-grade ores, but is there any further information? Presumably it was a cyanide process? Other ores are mentioned – were these smelted on site? (Tailings and extraction/smelting are generally the most impactful aspects of a mine, so a mining GA should be sure to cover them unless the information just isn't available.) Thanks! Nice article otherwise! Larataguera (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I only nominate articles I start for GA once I feel like I've exhausted all information on the topic. However, I did find that I have access to newspaper archives via Wikipedia library after I did this article, so it is possible that this information exists there. I will check soon. I suspect you know this, but for the benefit of others, I will absolutely always put in all environmental information as I can. CT55555(talk) 00:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I figured that the information was missing because it couldn't be found, but I thought I'd make sure. Thanks for being thorough. Larataguera (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Kerr Addison Mines (TSE) frequently exceeded effluent standards [for cyanide] without so much as a rap on the knuckles. Later owners fined 50k for discharge of cyanide into Larder Lake. [1] Larataguera (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a great find. I've added it in. Thanks! CT55555(talk) 12:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Larataguera: Any more to add? If not I can close this nomination. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 20:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Here's few more: Kerr-Addison applied for permits to dump tailings in Larder lake in 1938 [2]. Contamination from gold mine tailings has severely impacted the lake. [3] (but maybe that source belongs in Larder Lake – that article doesn't even mention gold mining in the area?). There is an NGO source that says Kerr-Addison dumped their tailings in Larder lake. I wouldn't hold up the review or anything, but something from these sources could better account for what happened to the tailings. Larataguera (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for these. I've added them in (not the NGO one). How did you find them? CT55555(talk) 15:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't do anything special to find them really. Just google searches for different terms until something came up. Phrases like Kerr-Addison mine tailings. Once I found the article where Deak was fined $50k, I figured they must have dumped them in the lake, so I searched for things like mine tailings Larder Lake. (Sorry if that's not very helpful! – I think mainly, I knew that there had be tailings somewhere, so I searched for them until I found them.) Larataguera (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Cxbrx

• "Algonquin chief Ignace Tonené" - I'm no expert here, but Tonené was a Teme-Augama Anishnabai Chief. The Algonquin people map shows the Algonquin people being adjacent to the Teme-Augama Anishnabai area at Lake Temagami and the Teme-Augama Anishnabai are not listed on the Algonquin page. It would probably be safest to replace Algonquin with Teme-Augama Anishnabai. It would be good to find someone with more knowledge than myself about this. Note that Tonené photo is [a featured picture candidate], he was (I feel) incorrectly described as an "Ojibwe chieftan", which I (hopefully) corrected. Another point it that "chief" should probably be capitalized as it is part of a title, though I might be wrong.
• "A J Perron" should be "AJ Perron" with no space. Searching for "A J Perron Gold" with no quotes did not find "A J", only "AJ". It might be worth checking the other company names.
• "The mine is located on basalt volcanic rock" - This is awkward to me. Basalt is a type of volcanic rock, not all volcanic rocks are basalt, so "basalt volcanic rock" is redundant. Basalt can also be used as an adjective. One option would be "on basaltic volcanic rock". However, an underground mine might be on a type of rock at the surface and the ore is located in a different type of rock. So "located on" is also a little odd. Describing the host rock of the ore that is mined might be more accurate than using "located on". Finding a more specific reference such as this one [4] might be helpful. Perhaps @User:Volcanoguy would know.

I may have other comments, but I have other tasks today. All and all, a good article and excellent work by @CT55555! Cxbrx (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for these sensible suggestions. I have made the suggested edits. The third one I am still reflecting on and may edit more. CT55555(talk) 15:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I would personally prefer "the mine is located in basalt of the Abitibi gold belt" since the mine workings are inside rock. Volcanoguy 16:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Should it be "in the basalt"? CT55555(talk) 16:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

No. Volcanoguy 17:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cxbrx: It's interesting you mentioned me in this GA review because I've actually heard of the Kerr-Addison Mine; I live about 120 km south of it. Volcanoguy 17:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Volcanoguy: I've seen your edits concerning mines around Temagami and figured that you likely have expertise in geology that I don't have. I have family from the area and now own the family cabin. Many thanks for your input here and your work elsewhere! Cxbrx (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to message me or mention me if I can help with anything. Volcanoguy 03:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: Shall I move this to the GA review page? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 18:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to tell you what to do. But as a suggestion, you could note on the review page that comments on talk page have been addressed? I consider the feedback here to be inspired by the GA review, but not technically part of it. CT55555(talk) 19:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Largest gold mine?

• "The mine was the largest gold mine in North America" appears in the first paragraph and has no references and does not state when this was the case. The claims are repeated below with a reference that reads 'Lawrence Johnstone Burpee (1969) Canadian Geographical Journal - Volumes 78-80, p 14 "Kerr - Addison Gold Mines, at Virginiatown, is the biggest gold producer in Canada , and in North America." This is not supported in the source I found at [5] which says: "Virginiatown, is the biggest gold producer in Canada, and North America it is exceeded only by the Homestake Mine" I propose that in the first paragraph the sentence be replaced with "In 1969, the mine produced the most gold in Canada. At that time, only the Homestake Mine produced more gold in North America." and the reference added. Also, the reference incorrectly states that Burpee was the author, I believe that he was the editor, so at a minimum, the reference should be changed to "Lawrence Johnstone Burpee, ed.". The reference should also have the link to GBooks added and use the cite books template. Looking at [6], I think that the article might be "Brown, L. Carson. Kirkland Lake: 50 Golden Years. (July), vol. LXXIX, p. 2.", but that is a guess on my part. The text should also be updated in the second location. Kerr Addison Mines Ltd. could also be updated with the reference.
• "and one of the largest mines in the Americas" appears in the first paragraph without reference and similar text is repeated below with the citation: "Coulson, Michael. (2012). The History of Mining: The Events, Technology and People Involved in the Industry That Forged the Modern World. United Kingdom: Harriman House. p208", which I found at [7], which states "in the form of the Kerr Addison mine, one of the largest mines in the Americas, let alone Canada" I think this is poorly written in the reference and should be removed from the article. The phrase "largest mine" could refer to the area of the mine. I think the point is that at the time it was the largest producer of gold, but that is not what is in the reference. I propose removing this text in two places. If this phrase is kept in both places, I'd like to see a second reference and a quality to which "largest" is being applied. If the text is kept, the reference should have the link to GBooks added and use the cite books template.

I can convert the references to use the cite books template sometime soon. I may have other comments later, but all and all the article is looking good! Cxbrx (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

On the specific issue of citing the lead, it is very uncommon to cite things in the lead. We always cite things in the rest of it and the lead summarises what is cited elsewhere. So it's normal and as per the Manual of Style to not cite anything in the lead. CT55555(talk) 15:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

There is more about that here: MOS:LEADCITE CT55555(talk) 16:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"The mine was the largest gold mine in North America" is cited to reference 4, and because it is offline and a bold claim, I quoted the words.

Lawrence Johnstone Burpee (1969) Canadian Geographical Journal - Volumes 78-80, p 14 "Kerr - Addison Gold Mines, at Virginiatown, is the biggest gold producer in Canada , and in North America." CT55555(talk) 15:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"one of the largest mines in the Americas" is cited to reference 5

Coulson, Michael. (2012). The History of Mining: The Events, Technology and People Involved in the Industry That Forged the Modern World. United Kingdom: Harriman House. p208 CT55555(talk) 15:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's the exact quote "...larderlake Larder Lake itself eventually yielded, in the form of the Kerr Addison mine, one of the largest mines in the Americas, let alone Canada..." CT55555(talk) 16:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback, and I support you improving the citations, but I don't think I've cited anything incorrectly. CT55555(talk) 16:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Extra source: "Kerr - Addison Gold Mines, at Virginiatown , is the biggest gold producer in Canada , and in North America is only succeeded by Homestake Mine" page 12

Canadian Geographical Journal. (1969). Canada: Royal Canadian Geographical Society.

I think this supports what you are saying, it's about production, rather than area, so I'll edit accordingly. CT55555(talk) 16:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Ah, I was not aware of MOS:LEADCITE. Now I know!

The text in the lead is still not quite right, it says:

"In 1969 the mine was the largest producer of gold in North America and one of the largest in the Americas."

However Burpee (1969) ref. #5 says:

"Virginiatown, is the biggest gold producer in Canada, and North America it is exceeded only by the Homestake Mine"

Burpee states that in 1969 it was the biggest gold producer in Canada, but Homestake was bigger. The lead incorrectly states that the mine was largest in North America. So, the lead should state something like:

"In 1969 the mine was second largest producer of gold in North America."

However, later the article states that not much mining occurred in the late 1960s and cites Smith et al (1993) ref. #10, which states:

"The best single year for Kerr Addison was in 1960, with production of 18,400 kg Au (see Figure 2) from 1,512,860 tonnes of ore milled, making it the top Au mine in North America for that year."

So, it might be better to write:

"In 1960, the mine was the largest producer of gold in North America. In 1969 it was written that overall, the mine produced the second most gold overall in North America, with the Homestake Mine being the leader."

We could drop the second sentence from the the lead. The main thing it to be clear that 1969 was not the biggest year of production.

I feel we disagree about the value of Coulson (2012), ref. #4, I find the claim to be vague and poorly worded because "largest" does not refer to production or area or anything else. Just because something appears in a book does not mean that it is correct. The author's background is in finance, not geology. Goodreads has a single poor review (not that that means much). I'm just not sure of the quality of the ref. I'd prefer it was removed or backed up with a second citation, but am happy to move on.

Later, the article states:

"In 1969, the mine was the most productive gold mine in North America and one of the most productive gold mines in the Americas."

I propose:

"In 1960, the mine was the largest producer of gold in North America. In 1969 it was written that overall, the mine produced the second most gold overall in North America, with the Homestake Mine being the leader."

The key points about my proposed changes are that it is more specific about the dates of production. This mine produced more gold than Homestake in 1960, but not in 1969. The second sentence includes when the claim was made. It could be that since 1969, other mines have outproduced this mine.

If you want to rewrite the above to include the Coulson's claim about being the largest in the Americas, then go for it. I've made my point about Coulson.

I'll try to get around to massaging the citations. Cxbrx (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I find your points compelling and we should work towards consensus. I've made the edits with a slight amendment. Are you supportive of the updated version? CT55555(talk) 14:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks great! I'm supportive. One mild comment is that in the lead I'm a little worried about when the mine produced the second most gold, but that is cleared up later, so it seems fine. Many thanks for your careful consideration of my comments. Cxbrx (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: Shall I move this to the GA review? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 18:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Same as above, I don't want to tell you what to do. But as a suggestion, you could note on the review page that comments on talk page have been addressed? I consider the feedback here to be inspired by the GA review, but not technically part of it. CT55555(talk) 19:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

My bad here, I'm not at all familiar with the GA process. I did not realize that there was a separate page etc. It could be that my comments should be on the GA page, but I don't create more chaos. If someone feels my comments should be moved or the GA page should be updated then please do so. I do feel that my comments have been addressed. Thanks. Cxbrx (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Closing comment

Note: I will be passing this article as all the comments have been addressed. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 11:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ALT0:... that the Kerr-Addison Mine was the largest producer of gold in North America in 1960? Source: Brown, L. Carson (July 1969). Burpee, Lawrence Johnstone (ed.). "Kirkland Lake: 50 Golden Years". Canadian Geographical Journal. Royal Canadian Geographical Society. 79 (1): 14. Retrieved 2023-06-05. "Kerr - Addison Gold Mines, at Virginiatown, is the biggest gold producer in Canada , and in North America exceeded only by the Homestake Mine."
  • ALT1: ... that the Kerr-Addison Mine produced the second most gold overall in North America? Source: Same as above
    • It would be more precise to state "... that in 1969 it was written that the Kerr-Addison Mine produced the second most gold overall in North America?"(ALT2) My guess is that other mines in North America have exceeded the production of this mine. For example, look at the graph in the Peak Gold. A lot more gold was mined in the US in the late 90s than in the late 60s. It could be that today the list of overall gold producers is different than it was in 1969. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cxbrx (talk • contribs) 05:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Soekiman Wirjosandjojo

Improved to Good Article status by CT55555 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 03:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Kerr-Addison Mine; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: As Cxbrx has pointed out, the source given here does not fully support ALT0 since it does not specify a year. However, the source cited in the article itself is [8] and supports this claim (The best single year for Kerr Addison was in 1960, with production of 18,400 kg Au (see Figure 2) from 1,512,860 tonnes of ore milled, making it the top Au mine in North America for that year.).

ALT1 is problematic since it does not mention any year. So the general claim that "Kerr-Addison Mine produced the second most gold overall in North America" is not supported.

The sentence in our article about the gold production in 1960 sounds like a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. To be on the safe side, it may be better to reformulate it some more. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Phlsph7 it seems like the (unlabelled, but that I'm calling) ALT2 above by Cxbrx address the issue. Do you agree? CT55555(talk) 15:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

ALT2 would work as well. Personally, I find ALT0 better since it is more informative: it is about the mine and not about what someone wrote about the mine. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

A very good point. I agree. And we see a better source above. So do we have consensus to go with ALT0 and use the source from the article? CT55555(talk) 17:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. The last point would be to reformulate the sentence "The most successful year was 1960 in which 18,400 kilograms of gold were produced from 1,512,860 tons of ore, making the mine the top producer in North America." in our article to avoid WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. Otherwise, I think it's a go. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I've addressed that now. CT55555(talk) 19:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. ALT0 approved. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)